Applying Environmental Economics to Valuation in Copyright Infringement

Disclaimer

Attorney Advertising. This blog is ATTORNEY ADVERTISING in those jurisdictions in which I am admitted to practice. It is not legal advice. If it were legal advice, it would be followed by a bill.

No Attorney Client Relationship. I provide this blog for general informational purposes only. I am an attorney and some of the information on this blog relates to legal topics, but no attorney client relationship is created when you use this blog. By using the blog, you agree that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between you and Keith Henning.

Not Legal Advice. The information contained in this site is for entertainment purposes only; it is not intended to constitute legal advice. The information on this blog is general only and limited to the instances discussed. I do not warrant or guarantee the accuracy, completeness, adequacy or timeliness of the information contained in this site, and users of information from this site do so at their own risk. This blog is not a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified attorney licensed in your state.

Email is Not Notice. . Email May Not Be Used to Provide Notice. Communications made through the blog's messaging system or email does not constitute legal notice.

Applying Environmental Economics to Valuation in Copyright Infringement

Posted on 08/21/2006 by Keith Henning

I am the first guy to give props to an original idea, even this one, which is pushing the cross-disciple thing to the edge. Seton Hall law prof. Frank Pasquale argues in the most recent issue of The Yale Journal of Law & Technology that the environmental economics’ methods used for valuing natural resources should be applied to valuing copyrighted works. PDF Frank Pasquale, Toward An Ecology Of Intellectual Property: Lessons From Environmental Economics For Valuing Copyright’s Commons, 8 YALE J. L. & TECH. 78 (2006). Worth a read, if just to see something completely new.